I think the case for adding economic friction is probably only when government initially created the problems in the market themselves. The Singapore government is increasing economic friction (through policy) to prevent a real estate bubble in Singapore - as oppossed to letting the prices run unchecked and let free market burst the bubble afterwards. Government probably causes the real estate bubble in first place - in Singapore possibly due to policy of increasing foreign talents and undersupply of new housing, in U.S. possibly due to prolonged low interest rate causing free market housing boom and associated financial products. When government controls demand and free market controls supply, or vice versa, market eventually malfunction and goes to extreme, as you had observed.
Do the "cooling-off" measures apply to owner-occupied housing as well as rentals? Is ABSD (if applied to owner-occupied properties) potentially going to drive people to choose to rent instead of own and thus drive rents up?
From military point of view, the best defence is offence. An offensive military capable of going out and hit the enemy in its homeland where it hurts bigtime is several times more detering than a home defence force that can only receive pounding and tough it out.
America had (arguably) one of the best offensive militaries (or at least one of the largest and most active in fighting wars) in the world and we still got blindsided on 9/11. Perhaps we should have focused more on better air defense and radar, point-defense interceptors for the US homeland, teaching airline passengers to fight back instead of "if you give in they won't hurt you", etc instead of trying to be the world's policeman with our large offensive military. For that matter, we had a very strong offensive military when we fought in Vietnam and against a much weaker and smaller nation the best we could claim was a draw because that weaker and smaller nation was willing to fight viciously to defend itself and what it stood for.
Switzerland, on the other hand, has very defensive oriented military rather than trying to project power and it doesn't seem to have hurt them militarily (Switzerland was left alone in both world wars ...it did shoot down both French and German aircraft entering its airspace during WWII but it did not directly attack either country).
To avoid an attack you don't necessarily have to be capable of launch a full scale war on your enemy's homeland; you just have to be seen as an unappetizing enough target in terms of cost-benefit that attacking you isn't worthwhile. Given that Singapore has no natural resources of its own that would make sustaining heavy casualties when attacking it seem a worthwhile proposition, I fail to see why a mostly defensive military would not suit it well (unless it plans to provoke other nations into war, which judging by Singapore's leadership so far seems rather unlikely).
Having 370,000 forces makes it twice as difficult for attacker to conquer. For military forces, its always the more the better.
If "more = better" when it comes to military forces, then why not do like the Soviets in Leningrad did in WWII and conscript everyone (men, woman, children and teenagers, the elderly, the able-bodied and infirm alike) to either serve in the military, build up the defenses of the city, or produce weapons and supplies for the military? The very idea, of course, is absurd. MORE is ONLY better when it is cost effective (in the above case it was at least somewhat cost effective since the city was encircled, besieged, and in danger of being overrun anyhow). Any asset maximized can become a liability and that includes a country's armed forces as well.
Furthermore, if the attacker was someone like China, "twice as difficult" might be more (relatively speaking in terms of losses they could sustain vs what Singapore could) like getting bitten by two mosquitoes instead of one.
Finally, if the choice is between A. Conscription, B. Extra taxation to fund a market-rate paid army, C. having a small conventional military but a nuclear capability as a deterrent against any trouble from a larger country (although for purposes of discussion this option is a moot point because you have already written it off), or D. a smaller conventional army and lower taxes, then maybe "more" is
not better and option D lets people keep more of their money (due to lower taxes) and more of their freedom (due to no conscription) albeit with the opportunity cost of having a smaller military than they would have otherwise (although in many people's eyes having a smaller and less costly government organization-and the military is a government organization-would be seen as more of a feature than a bug).
Between conscription (physical slavery) and increased tax (economic slavery), neither is better than the other, and increasing tax to pay for army is substituting one problem for another.
"But that's substituting one problem for another" is a lame excuse. EVERY decision someone makes about how to allocate resources to meet a goal will to some extent be substituting one problem for another. Heck, that's pretty much what the whole science of economics is about - the trade-offs we make and opportunity costs we encounter as we seek to use distinctly finite resources to meet practically infinite wants/needs.
Taxation and a volunteer army is certainly better than conscription due to the following:
1. Taxation spreads the burden more fairly.
2. The deadweight economic loss from taxation is more transparent (the taxes paid and any reduction of economic activity resulting from people's decision to work less/invest less due to the taxes...which according to Saez and Pittaeky's work doesn't start to get anywhere near serious until marginal rates reach 60-70% which is far higher than Singapore would need to support a volunteer army paid at market rates) is visible versus the losses imposed by conscription (the human capital that goes to waste as human resources-AKA people-are forcibly put into jobs they are ill suited for instead of working at jobs where the market indicates their talents are best suited plus the potential economic loss if the next Steve Jobs or Thomas Edison gets drafted and killed in war); the losses imposed by conscription in many ways exemplify the "broken window fallacy" where you don't see them because the aren't explicit (like an extra line on your taxes for the amount needed to support a volunteer army) but are in the form of valuable economic activity in the free market that never takes place because the people who are best talented, qualified, and Pareto-optimal for it are stuck in NS.
3. Taxes-in-kind (taxes paid in goods or services rather than in money...in this case the draft can be thought of as a tax paid in one's labor and time in order to "fund" a the good/service of national defense) are not particularly efficient. This makes sense when you think about why we invented money (in lieu of barter) to facilitate trade and how inefficient it would be if we had to pay for EVERYTHING we wanted directly with our labor instead of with our money (imagine going to buy groceries at Giant and being told you had to pay in a certain amount of time spent mopping floors or stocking shelves instead of with cash or a credit card....now imagine having to do something similar at every business you patronize).
4. Conscription discriminates against those who feel that military service and fighting/killing are immoral due to their religious or philosophical beliefs. Singapore has little or no provision for conscientious objection and as a result treats members of pacifistic faiths very harshly and unfairly. The Singapore government's near outlawing of the Jehovah's Witnesses (and of their right to try and speak freely to spread their faith) is almost as bad as what happens to them in many fundamentalist Muslim countries and your government's reason for doing it (the JWs' stance against war and conscription) is the same reason Nazi Germany persecuted them...not exactly something to be proud of. Come to think of it, even Russia under the Romanovs (no great exemplar of individual freedom) allowed alternate service in forestry for those whose religious convictions refused to allow them to kill and whose consciences would give them no peace if they were to take up arms. That Singapore is even worse than Czarist Russia on this issue speaks volumes and should be a national embarrassment to any nation that would consider itself a free country.
5. Conscription makes unpopular wars-of-choice last longer (and at a resulting far greater cost in blood and treasure) than they would be if they had to be fought with volunteers (and allows governments to fight such wars in the first place instead of fighting only when the country is actually attacked). How long do you think a pointless war like Vietnam would have lasted for the US if we had to fight it with all-volunteer forces? For that matter, how long would WWI have lasted if all the combatants (but especially France, Russia, and Germany) had to rely on forces who chose to be their instead of on conscripts? My guess is that Vietnam would have been over in three or four years (from 1964 to the Tet Offensive or thereabouts) and both sides in WWI would have sued for peace by late 1916 or early 1917, had they not had a constant supply of cannon fodder from the draft.
I could go on and on but I think you get my point.
. Imagine increasing tax and doubling volunteer army and pay above market rate to attract enough volunteer army, then there are twice the number of unhappy people (now both men and women population complains) complaing about wasting taxpayer money on overpaid military with practically little to do during peacetime. Neither is good, neither is better.
First of all, so what if women are now complaining as well as men? If Singapore does indeed need a large army (an arguable point at best), then why should one get out of having to pay for one's share of it (be it in tax or in-kind) just because of their gender? That is incredibly sexist and misandristic. If women (or for that matter men) want to have the right to vote taken away from them again then perhaps we can consider their not having to chip in for their fair share of a nation's defense. Until then, any argument that roughly one half of the population should be allowed to virtually "free-ride" just because of what's between their legs rings hollow, unfair, and of a sense of wanting certain rights and privileges of citizenship without having to contribute in any way to pay for it.
From a purely utilitarian standpoint, if twice the number of people are affected but the overall effect is less then for a "tax-and-pay-market-wages to soldiers" versus for conscription then an all-volunteer force is the clear winner. Let's say that you had a group of 100 people and needed to get $1,000 from them and were forced to choose between either:
A. Enslaving ten of them (picked by drawing lots) for a day (assume those enslaved could produce $100 of goods/services per person per day after costs for their food, upkeep, etc),
or,
B. Taking $10 from everyone in the group,
Which choice would impose the most hardship (again, on a purely utilitarian basis...I think you'd agree with me that both choices are wrong on a purely moral basis) overall? I think most people would rather pay the money (a guaranteed loss of $10) than risk being the one in ten who would be enslaved for the day; thus the overall "harm" done is less (proven by what most would choose...what economists call "revealed preference" ) with "taxation" than with "conscription".
Also, I don't think their would be much waste of taxpayer money on soldiers with little to do in peacetime...even with a volunteer army, the large majority could be (and would be, if Singaporeans so chose) reservists like they are now under conscription. This would reduce costs compared to the expense of keeping a full-time army of 370,000 or so.
I think some Singaporean would probably wholly agree with what you have said, about freedom, conscription, rights, and some would probably think like I do too.
Just as a rough guess, what percentage do you think would agree with me and what percent would agree with you (in the US I'd say that at least 65-70% would agree with me that conscription is worse than an army paid at a market rate).
My starting point is, i recognize Singapore is what it is today, good and bad, due to efforts of previous generations who has roughed it out for us. So while I am now enjoying the good things in life provided by previous generation, I am not going to critisize so much about the bad things that they brought into the Singapore culture in the process - its not fair to them because they did the best they could under the circumstances. I believe these undesirable parts of Singapore will be removed in time one by one, and I am willing to give Singapore time to change things quickly in a few years or slowly in a few generations, as necessary. I do hope Singapore continues to adapt good customs from other culture, while avoiding their bad practices. For U.S., it has had many more generations to get things right and weed out the bad, and still there are practices that U.S. need to discard and correct.
I agree with you that in my own country there are many things that we have corrected, although I also concur there are still some bad things we do need to "weed out"
But if you (or someone) do not criticize the bad things about
your country and your culture and seek to change them, then who will? Power, oppression, and injustice rarely gives up themselves easily or without someone shining a light on them and standing up for change. Perhaps "the best they could do under the circumstances" is no longer the best the a nation that wants to be seen as free, modern, prosperous, and as a fully developed member of the First World, could and can do.
